Comments on the Seventh Generation Blog announcing the departure of Jeffrey Hollender reflected teh tradition of protest from consumers that lacked the depth of educated analysis on a very complex topic.One consumer offered a link to the NAD post and positioned Seventh Generation as a green washer who used false advertising tactics. Mixed in with the post were protest-driven remarks about Seventh Generation adding Walmart to its distribution channels.

Last week, I featured a post that spoke of the end of an era of doing business led by a CSR hero and offered a more balanced overview for any reader from any sector in terms of the evolution of Seventh Generation (and for that matter any CSR company with a heroic founder).

CSR advocacy and protesting is often based on the mixing of "apples and oranges" that should have been give more careful analysis. Recent press suggested that Hollender has been fired and is taking the fall for Seventh Generation distribution through Walmart and other mainstream channels. Others insisted Hollender took the fall for describing Seventh Generation products as "natural" when chemicals are in use.

I offered this viewpoint on the Seventh Generation Blog with this comment:

There is a reality not spoken here that has to do with price points and innovation. It is similar to some of the challenges in the biopharm market today.

Pricepoints for new products is often higher. The LOHAS (Lifestyles of Health and Sustainability) for years had a price point higher than usual retail or discount chains. The market research of the 90's showed that people would go into Whole Foods and spend more on Muir Organic tomatoes before they would go to Walmart. Walmart sold the same product.

It was presumed that the market of LOHAS folks would not go to WalMart.

The economy has changed and consumer profiles have changed. What people spend on anything now has changed. If the expenditure is for a product that is new and not as easy to purchase, they will pay a high price point. Look at what happened to Apple: Apple is now accessible to everyone.

The other issue is health. The new generation of parents are wise, organic and green and select this way of life no matter their politics. They live within their means and not on credit.

Hence the Seventh Generation customer has changed, the market has changed and step by step, practices and markets are emerging that base their purchases more on education of ingredients and less on who the person is behind the brand.

I received an email about my post from Germany pointing out that I did an analysis that was not about CSR martyrdom.

CSR is a buzz in journalism. In life it is a quiet practice that is not about personality. It is about finding a "new normal."

To stay viable and sustainable, Seventh Generation will have to find a "new normal."

T

I also have this view regarding chemicals and #safechem practices that is not easily understood by manufacturers, consumers and government. Safe chemical practices implies finding substitutes for chemicals in use. The cost for innovation and research for finding substitutes is often beyond what one company can fund on their own.

In June 2010, I attended the American Sustainable Business Council Meeting on safe chemical practices in Washington DC. Hollender was a panelist where he spoke clearly about his commitment to transparency and the challenges and needs to build a safe chemical practice.

Through his leadership, Jeffrey Hollender has invested in educating people to the needs for a Safer Chemicals practice. I have dedicated four years of time to research on this topic as well that include my investigations of the impact of REACH and Green Chemistry. While Jeffrey and I do not agree on method and approach, at least we are both doing something about the issue.

I am always open to meeting with Jeffrey and Procter and Gamble at the same table to work out our disagreements with other experts presesnt to forge ahead on a new innovative practice with others to work out an approach to safer chemicals that can accelerate change, research and innovation. I

I know that this new method of practice for chemicals is not going to be sparked by new regulations. I also know I cannot depend on businesses alone innovating these practices in a vacuum.

Seventh Generation and Procter and Gamble responded to the claims of greenwash and false advertising that reflects their practice of transparency while they both continue to be change agents who impact the world to build a sustainable economy. Procter and Gamble, like other companies similar in size such as General Electric and Walmart, are altering the way they work, globally influencing changes with their supply chains, global consumer communities and internal practices.

With the departure of Hollender, Seventh Generation as a company faces a door of change where the its future is not clear. Once a new permanent CEO is selected, it may neither achieve nor accelerate a sustainable agenda and grow into a global giant. The world of Safer Chemicals also requires a response different than what has already been authored by GE, Walmart and P&G. I know this with certainty.

In my investigation on how to impact and lead change for Safer Chemicals, I have been digging more deeply into the history of oil spills before BP and thinking through the challenges of supply chains in working with manufacturers to assure Safe Chemicals and replace harmful chemicals. I am learning as much as I can in between all I do. Riki Ott's NOT ONE DROP is becoming my primary resource.

I have been a supporter of chemical-related REACH legislation in the European Union since its inception and have recently come to realize the bureacracy and cost of REACH in addition to how the US-proposed TSCA Reform is not addressing the real issue. The amount of chemical used is not addressing the actual dose of chemical it takes to cause harm.

Recently, I received a copy of Green Chemistry is Good For Business, a letter posted on Forbes.com by Craig S. Criddle, Robert G. Bergman and their colleagues at Stanford and UC Berkeley. Their post validates the concerns I am synthesizing through my own research on Safer Chemical and Non Ionizing Radiation Practices.

Written as a response to California's Bad Chemistry, Dr. Henry I. Miller's post on Forbes.com, the authors state that the California Green Chemistry Initiative is a "proactive regulatory effort" to create a process to "identify chemicals of the greatest concern [and] provide an analysis of safer alternatives."

By contrast, the Forbes blog post from Dr. Miller is written from a narrow view similar to the original post from Aneel Kunarni that sparked the #csrdebate in September. I feel that this post invites a similar debate with representatives who are working in the arena to eliminate harm to human health and environment through chemical toxicity.

Our public health research is always ahead of public opinion and government capability. My belief is that there are many good people working in manufacturing that stay abreast of the current public health research and opinion and the cost of media, promotion and education is exceeding the investment that many good people want to invest in programs of Safer Chemicals.

The Swedish-based non-profit ChemSec.org has become a premier example of a non-monetary incubator that can influence manufacturing and supply chains directly. Funding sources for this kind of venture are sourced through a lot of hard work and energy.

The expense of media, protest, debate, lobbying, drafting and campaign for legislation is costly and the time lines to organize laws out of fear continue to be the dominant drivers for change reported on by the press.

I believe we need to develop new formats of innovation and communities of practice that lead this change. It is not going to come from the tradition of how science, advocacy and business has worked in the past. It is going to invite new forums of communities of practice, like the forum my partners and I are launching for WE Care Global Health.

I have a professional background as a health care program manager, leader and capacity building of change. I have a personal passion for working on a safe chemical practice and defining a new capacity to insure every person's right to the best health possible in a world where one out of two people are likely to encounter chronic illness.

I am one person of millions of men, women and children who lives with a chronic illness due to unsafe use of chemicals. As a former health care program leader and manager, I understand more than most that safe chemical practices may in fact be the one of the best vehicles for reducing health care costs in the United States and any country if a perspective of "do no harm" is integrated into how we live, consume and care for health.

An advocacy approach to attack Seventh Generation or Procter and Gamble will not build the capacity we need in a sustainable economy to build safe chemical practices to "do no harm." We need new methods of building capacity, funding research and resources to manage the use of chemicals and identify chemicals that are hazardous no matter their volume of use. The amount of chemical in use is never the issue; it is the impact of chemicals of any amount that can be hazardous.

Jeffrey Hollender and I do agree on the importance of convening people of different views to a table to work on this issue. I believe this table has to invite representatives from industry, government and the non-profit sector to pull together to do the hard work, rather than simply present what each person is doing to contribute from the perspective of the sector in which they work.

I view there is a need to stop investing in educating politicians and congressional working groups to the need and how to author legislation and invite them to invest resources into community of practices who will seek out the right education on chemicals to find replacement for toxic chemicals or determine "precautionary toxic chemical use."

It is my goal to continue to contribute to build a new forum of "sustainable excellence," that impacts the health of women, children and men battling chronic illness as a result of exposure to chemical, environmental and non ionizing radiation.

While I happen to be a citizen who lives with the impact of this harm on my own health, I am also a former health care program manager, business woman and capacity builder. I have learned to live as best I can with my health challenges while developing the skill and capacity to define the necessary agenda to build "sustainable excellence" for the health and well-being of all global citizens. While this work is challenging on many fronts, it is the only way I know how to make a difference in a confusing world where chaos and protest often obstruct healthy progress.

If Seventh Generation, any company, consumer or politician wants to support this form of capacity building, I welcome any support in which to build this kind of forum of "sustainable excellence."

September 19, 2010

What happens when two women, who are colleagues and leading practitioners of CSR perceive a need to follow up the 20+ blog responses and 250 individual comments posted to Dr. Aneel Karnani’s #WSJ Blog post, “The Case Against Corporate Social Responsibility?”

Voila... Here is What Happened!

Susan McPherson, a Senior Vice President with Fenton.com and Christine Arena, blogger, author and founder of sparkUP, produced and moderated a panel of today's top thought leaders in CSR practice representing companies, think tanks and media outlets of reputation.

The event sponsors included Fenton.com, the Paley Center for Media and CSRwire; the leaders in reporting on the impact of CSR in society, business and culture. Fenton.com, true to its mission, produced this event as a campaign to create change.The Paley Center for Media has staked itself to be the hub of the intersection between media and society; CSRWire has created the leading wire service format for anyone working in or reporting on CSR.

Seven of the nine panelists were drawn from companies, networks and media that represent the "best practice" CSR today. Each of these panelists has exercised competence in the arena of CSR as a leader and contributing to this field of practice.

The CSR panelists joining Arena and McPherson were

Matthew Bishop – U.S. Business Editor and New York Bureau Chief, The Economist

Each individual made their case for CSR based on their own first hand experience and the results.

As result the reports offered benchmarked CSR as it operates in today's global marketplace within 15 minutes of when the broadcast began.

An Event Benchmarking CSR as a Business Practice Impacting Societal Change.

There is no question from the majority of people represented on this panel that CSR is fulfilling a need to address some of the most controversial complexity that effects business, the workforce and society today as reflected by the escalating frequency of catastrophes e.g. the BP Oil Spill, PG&E explosion and a summer of record hot temperatures.

The two panelists contributed to an opposing view of the value of CSR, Dr. Aneel Karnani, Associate Professor of Strategy, Stephen M. Ross School of Business, University of Michigan and Chrystia Freeland – Global Editor-at-Large, ThomsonReuters. The academic view of Dr. Kurnani and mainstream press perspective of Freeland were based on generalizations to simplify a very complex subject matter expertise for which they both lack hands on experience and simply draw conclusions from what they observe based on their "expert" education and discipline.

I wondered if Karnani or Freeland had the education and experience to grasp the complexity of CSR agenda. I questions whether or not Karnani or Freeland have made note or participated in the learning available through the educational incubators. These non-profit incubators draw membership from business, government and non-govermental organziations that are advancing the CSR agenda and synthesizing the science and expertise that has become "mission critical" to building a CSR strategy in any company.

The incubators include

The Environmental Defense Fund

ChemSec.org

World Resource Institute

Radiation Research Trust

Each of these organizations have attracted participations that form into learning communities distilling the best science from which companies can base change on subject matter, e.g. climate warming, substitution of hazardous chemical, eco-system degradation and the effects of non-ionizing radiation.

Kurnani’s post stoked the fire that led to the production of this event. The reaction to this post ignited a new passion and recognition of CSR. While Kurnani views CSR as harmful and dangerous, he seemed to lack any experience or participation in the social networks that have formed and shaped communities of practice that are setting the standards and measuring the impact of CSR strategy in action.

The umbrella organization synthesizing this scale of activity is the UN Global Compact. George Kell, Executive Director, who contributed to this discussion/debate leads an organization that now sustains a membership of 7700 global companies. Membership into the UN Global Compact requires a demonstration of acting on the principles and values that have been authored by the community and fulfilling reporting requirements that show how a company is concretely acting on these principles and values with a framework authored for its membership by Deloitte Touche and a metric system and knowledge gained from Ceres and the Global Reporting Initiative.

The goal of this community is to learn to "exercise precaution" and work to prevent the oversights of harm that had historically been responded to by NGO campaigns against corporations that in turn invested profit to lobby and oppose the prospect of government regulations to mandate compliance.

The New Concrete CSR Agenda

Panelists provided reports of their experience with CSR as a vital business strategy, to create new markets, mitigate risk and lead to building as sustainable economy. CSR practice in its current formation has:

1. Demonstrated that the business motivation for CSR and Sustainability compliments rather than replaces what governments do and never as a substitute.

2. Built an accelerate response and trajectory of learning by global business that in the 20th century grew based on reaction to the tradition of NGO campaigns and the political processes to form and pass regulation to solve major problems that companies had not historically addressed proactively.

3. Become part of being a company's capacity to be competitive by staying ahead of the game and responding to new emerging markets in.

4. Taken on non-financial issues that fall between the cracks that can be very costly and decrease future profits.

5. Shifted the historical view of CSR as philanthropic/volunteer practice to a practice that integrates with core to the business strategy that takes responsibility to solve world problems.

7. Addressed the issues of complexity that business faces today. For example, Campbell Soup’s CSR strategy is one of the 7 core business strategies because it makes the company better, builds engagement, attracts talent and makes us better as a company, make us more nimble to drive a change in culture that drives the mission of the company.

8. Out of the challenge of the terminology of "corporate social responsibility," CSR has provoked a struggle that is shaping in a world of accelerated change where geographical boundaries and rules by which companies have operated in the past have simply become obsolete; hence creating new emerging markets (and economies of scale).

9. Challenged the Milton Friedman view that business's sole purpose is to make money; and therefore challenged the focus on short -term profits and the ways in which the stock market has not been prudent in influencing a long term business approach.

10. Recognizes that corporate citizenship is as important as compliance and for business to aspire to do ethical business.

11. Resulted in China adopting the model of corporate social responsibility and applying it to China's state owned businesses with the goal to keep these state owned companies competitive and build China's capacity to enter new markets and achieve outcomes that permit them to compete in the global world.

12. Opened a new understanding of how business issues spill over into regulatory issues; and where there is a conflict assure that business and regulators work it out by naming the problem and working it out.

13. Begun to reconcile the difference in perspectives, culture and diversity that exist around the world by recognizing in the global market place that the same rules cannot be applied everywhere.

Conclusion

CSR expert panelists summarized some meaningful points in the end that influenced the panel and debate.

Dave Stangis suggested that focusing a debate on articles, pushes people to get too simple.

Matt Bishop suggested that it would be valuable to shape a future debate around what companies are doing for CSR and Sustainability or Corporate Citizenship and how invite more transparency and quality of journalism to the debate.

George Kell pointed out that the American tendency to shape conversations that are generalized does not work for construction of complicated issues that involve CSR.

Araon Cramer provided an example of how Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and Facebook have united to examine Freedom of Speech that goes beyond the grasp of government to deal with and for business to take this on collaboratively and not just sweep these difficult challenges under the rug, accelerates the an examination that would not be addressed at a pace that makes sense by government alone.

Any person working in industry, government or for a non-governmental organization should review this broadcast and consider joining this type of debate, which I believe will accelerate the value of CSR to society, culture and education.

George Kell pointed out that unlike most American press, generalizations cannot empower what is needed to have a constructive CSR conversation. One of Kell's final remarks offered related to reporting on the membership of the UN Global Compact response of 20% interest to climate change that he anticipated would grow to 30% next year represented an indicator of importance.

During the last 25 years, the global audience of companies interested in CSR has formed a learning infrastructure that has accelerated learning and adoption of this approach to core business practice. CSR has gained the traction of a living system of thought that millions of people in business and outside business now grapple with.

Join me in giving a standing ovation to Susan McPherson and Christina Arena for putting a stake in the ground with this event to redefine CSR and its value today. Susan and Christina produced an event of meaning that provided a shared understanding of CSR beyond its initial formation of a philanthropic and publicity strategy and tactics.

CSR has formed into a mature complex practice that I would not have predicted when I attended my first Stanford University BSR presentation by Anita Roddick in 1992. Anita was Founder and President The Body Shop. She conceived her idea for a CSR business in 1976, launched her company from her home and when she went to shape it into a professional global company, she wrote a business plan that was worthy of bank financing. Upon applying for financing by herself, she was turned down by the bank. When she returned to the bank with her husband, who offered co-signature she was funded.

Anita,one of the founding leader, who help to create this movement of change passed away September 10, 2007 at Age 64 of cancer. I am regret she could not live to see this acceleration of CSR principles and values in practice globally.

Christine and Susan, you have provided through your outstanding leadership and production of this event a form of celebration for this movement of change that has become a global business practice reflectin the hard work of men and women over the past 40 years working hard to build what you brought to light on September 17th, 2010.

The CSR panelists, for the #csrdebate, are role models of CSR professionals today who shaped the CSR agenda as an agenda that demands board and director attention and performance.

September 12, 2010

As a Massachusetts resident, I have been following the story of Genzyme back to Sept. 2001 drawing on my understanding of the ecosytem that surrounds a corporate balance sheet and the intersection of a business game with government, people and non government organizations.

While I have not worked at Genzyme, I have developed an opinion that Genzyme operates a culture lost in its past success based on a founders passion and has not adapted itself in an ecosystem that can sustain itself and influence a health ecology around the globe. Genzyme is operating in the tradition of any company responding to "Wall Street" ups and downs and has shaped its agenda to sustain.

This is no surprise. Most US based companies that mustered fast growth profits based on a tradition of investment that limits its focus on ROI for shareholders rather than a triple bottom line. Most of the companies and economic decision makers perpetuate a corporate culture based on historical success profitable until a harmful event occurs. The response to the harmful event become the roadmap for the future.

Genzyme has experienced this kind of event. June 2009, a virus outbreak in its Allston MA manufacturing plant resulted in steep delays of production of drugs critical to the treatment of people with Gaucher or Fabry Disease. The initial response shut down this plants operations. In the months that followed, it became clear that Genzyme had not developed manufacturing production systems that prevent hazardous exposure. The delays to correct the problem indicated Genzyme did not have skill and competence in applying the systems and processes for manufacturing that comply with FDA requirements or are standard practice for a mature and stable company with profit. By April 2010 the FDA levied a $175M fine on Genzyme for the event and poor response.

The incident and the lack of quality response that follows is smaller scale than the impact of the BP Oil skill, but reflects the ongoing types of drama that occur when a profitable company grows in size and does not put systems in place to respond strategically to the requirements of GRI, GRI or ESG metrics.

Most of the ongoing drama's in industry today and years past reflects this viscious cycle. The State of Massachusetts where I lived has not been successful in breaking its this destructive pattern. I saw this pattern form in the mid 80's with the demise of Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC). In 1986, DEC stood strong with 160,000 employees globally. Then through the dysfunction of its CEO, Ken Olsen, who did not believe personal computing was the new wave, DEC began a cycle of destruction and downsized over the next 5-7 years from 160,000 employees globally to fewer than 35,000. DEC was then acquired by Compaq. Compaq was absorbed by Hewlett Packard and the drama continues with a focus on CEO behavior and ethic that has resulted in HP dismissing its past two CEO's; Carly Fiorina and Marc Hurd.

On the brighter side, I view Genzyme can shift away from this vicious cycle because of the current progress by 7700 companies that comprise the membership of the UN Global Compact.

Genzyme today stands at a door of possibility to sustain its company by adopting the action research practice of the UN Global Compact and can learn from the progress of companies, e.g. Danisco and Sanofi Aventis and the results they have achieved from defining a a steep CSR/Sustainability Agenda.

In this particular case, Sanofi Aventis happens to be a company that offered an unsolicited bid to Genzyme which was refused and is now rumored to be positioned to be conversing with Genzyme Board of Directors, e.g. Carl ICann; who are open to selling their stock to Sanofi Aventis.

Whether on its own or merged with Sanofi Aventis, the solution for Genzyme to sustain is to organize itself to view the Genzyme economy as a participant in an ecosystem that can sustain if it shifts its attitude and perspective to adopt a global agenda for sustainability from which to survive. If Genzyme economic decision makers embark on embedding sustainability as part of a global agenda, they could even influence a struggling state that has had massive economic decline and job loss and shift the US challenging experience of a declining economy.

Sanofi Avenits' virtual report provides an audio presentation Christopher A. Viehbacher, CEO, Sanofi Aventis outlines in less than 2 minutes Sanofi Aventis clear commitment to its steep global mission to improve the health of as many 6.8B people walking the planet. The strategy includes addressing present and future public health agenda, increasing innovation to R&D and opening the company to merger acquisitions and building infrastructure to make the world a better way to live.

If you take the time that I did last night to trace through 2 years of press dating back to June 16, 2009 - you can view some serious glitches in the the system of regulation that surrounds Genzyme based on the American tendency to respond to issues in business by evoking "laws of fear" or fall back on the drama of the shareholder reports authored by investment sites and legal authorities that Genzyme is leading itself into a corner to end up with a "hostile takeover." Yesterdays headline in the Boston Globe announced a 1,000 person layoff. If you read closely in the fine print, there is no immediate threat of a 1,000 person pink slip day of layoff. The threat of layoff was defined as a workforce reduction over the next 15 months of 1,000 employees.

The other feed to Genzymes instability has been it price per share dance since 2008. With the outbreak of viruses that contaminated the Allston plants drug production of Fabrizyme and Cerazyme that Genzyme's stock value fell from its all time high of $80 a share in 2008 to an all time low of $47.16 this Spring. With the press buzz regarding the Sanofi Aventis offer the stock climbed slightly above $70.00 a share by the end of July 2010. This would make any company ripe for a merger acquisition.

In contrast to share value, Genzyme profits in 2009 of $422.3M on $4.5B in sales sustains its position as a Fortune 500 company. So the $175M FDA fine paid from profit seems to have sparked more harmful activity rather than inspire a change to leadership based on ESG investment practices.

The ecosystem that surrounds Genzyme is a system of defeat perpetuating the economic downturn in Massachusetts that also swells throughout the United States. Genzyme lives in a system of government, regulation and economic development that is faltering on a federal and state level and does not speak the speak of a company living in a global economy. The FDA views this fine cutting into their profits as a constructive step. This makes me wonder why the FDA could not have simply asked that these funds of profit be directed to resources that correct the problems and steer Genzyme to a sustainable future?

The tradition of response in the United States to catastrophes of this kind, is to fire a CEO, fine a company or make the company directly responsible for the harm it has caused its consumers. Massachusetts now stands to have another decline in its job census the the Massachusetts High Technology Council and our State Leadership has failed to alter.

I could not find through my screen to the "Internet," anything that showed me that Genzyme has formed productive partnerships with government and NGO economic development leaders to breath life into a regional and global ecosystem in the economy of suppliers, patients, distributors through out is global geography.

The most popular news outlets reporting on Genzyme are perpetuating the tradition of reporting that focused on lost profits, hostile take overs, lost jobs, and a stock valuation that is unsteady and emotionally reactive. A human side to this story was brought to life by reporters, who interviewed patient families about their history of loyalty, but I could find no story on how Genzyme was going to assure a response of quality for the production and supply maintenance of the drugs these families have come to rely on. .

Can Genzyme find an Ecosystem to Regroup ?

No where have I found in the reports, a "tale of meaningful use," where Genzyme is adopting the priniciples modeled through strategy and action similar to the approach led by Kathryn Winkler, Chief Sustainability Officer for EMC. Aman Singh, Vault.com CSR and Diversity Editor interviewed me last April on how I perceived Kathryn's CSR role and why this is different response than most companies as to how they approach the green, csr or sustainability practices. In my interview with Aman, I pointed out that

"Kathrin's skill of engaging the EMC workforce into the vision of sustainability is based on a simple premise: 'corporate sustainability is really about business survival: Take the long view, or your business won't survive in a failing global society or environment. Long-term sustainability affects customers, employees, suppliers, neighbors, partners, governmental bodies, and civil society. If we make our business choices based on how we interact with those stakeholders, then we are promoting sustainability."

This view of engagement, which I teach in a program to my leadership clients hold high regard for the social network that surrounds an economy of resource that serves all stakeholders with a global view that we now live in a time of business, work and living that requires values, principles and infrastructure that sustains health, environment, and planet. Without this view, we will continue to perpetuate a more rapid stream of destruction as evidenced by the BP Oil Spill and the increasing number of hazards impacting the health of the environment and people.

What is in the future for Genzyme?

I chose not to approach Genzyme's current situation by writing a tale of woe that predicted more failure or advised a Sanofi Aventis purchase or merger. I cannot directly influence Henri Temeer, CEO of Genzyme and its Board of Directors on what strategy to follow. Ultimately the market will see a future for Genzyme, whether it remains standing on its own as a Fortune 500 global company or merges with another global biopharmaceutical leader. Ultimately Genzyme still has time to chose its own future if they are prepared to act to #sustainnow that exercises precaution.

Cordially,

Lavinia Weissman

Lavinia Weissman is an ecologist and sustainability leadership coach with a practice based in Boston MA. Through her practice, Lavinia draws on people representing all sectors of thought to build ecological approaches to work and the economy to sustain health and the environment. Her imagination and passion is to empower practical and concrete strategies of action that exercise precaution.

About Lavinia's Approach to her Work.

Lavinia's practice draws on knowledge of ESG, CSR and Sustainability pracitces and the system of network that surround this subject matter expertise based. She is a capacity builder who draws on social network analysis and to develop deliberately designed methods of educationthat lead cultures of change through the convening of people to learn to do and act sustainably.

Lavinia is available to guide the imagination and development of thinking from a practical view for anyone who choses to navigate the chaos at the present time and find a personal path that is more productive to assuring the eco system is nourished and lives so employees, patients, shareholders and economic regions can survive.

September 01, 2010

@elainecohen has been using her twitter and blog posts to mix up a lot of ideas that added great value to the idea of chemistry (#safechem) as a metaphor for a sustainable leadership practice of "sensemaking." Elaine directs us to think of the chemical practice of "mixing up of ingredients" as a metaphor from which companies can build learning and sustainable outcomes ( OR NOT).

I pointed out something similar this past week, as a guest blogger at IN GOOD COMPANY.In this post I provided my thesis for how CSR and Sustainability has to move from its frontier form of startup into a practice that mixes up all the ingredients that sustsainability implies.

By the time I completed and published this post, Elaine had me on my toes again without permitting me any time to take a breath!

Interacting in the CSR Social Media world has most certainly become an opportunity to gain more precision with life balance. While Elaine finds stress relief with Chunky Monkey; I have taken to the treadmill and nautilus for my own stress relief. Right now I can't imagine doing anything else but breathing and sweating my way through the chaos of opportunity that has shaped in CSR and Sustainability.

On a daily basis, I am pushed to distinguish my writing time to the art of research and story telling versus the art of summary and analysis. Your combined intelligence productively distracts me!

In the last few weeks, Elaine's blog posts and twittering have generated rapid forms forms of response and analysis that set me back from doing the thorough reearch my work requires to teach and capture the story of change in sustainability. Hence, I am getting far more selective in what I read and harvested these links most recently that are relevant to my own work.

Within Elaine's Dow Chemical analysis, she asserts an important meta-perspective using the practice of chemistry as a metaphor for sustainable business practice, when she asserted:

"This rigid structure, together with the impersonal nature of the report (only one photo of the Chairman and none of employees or any other stakeholders) made me think of comparing the Dow report to a chemistry experiment - sterile laboratory conditions, detailed lab notes, exact measures of all materials, a process conducted in perfect sequence and an output which delivers a predictable result. A CSR Report is, after all, not just a report. It is a story. A story of how PEOPLE are doing sustainable business. Even chemistry labs need people."

This metaphor implies and supports how critical PEOPLE and HUMAN CAPITAL are to '"mixing the ingredients" of CSR into sustainable business practice.

As a consultant to @jeffreyhogue, Elaine provided the idea and driver for the the Danisco synthesis of its report with the title she gave to Danisco for their 2010 report, "Ingredients for Sustainability."

Is Danisco seeking to follow Walmart and General Electrics' example of reorganizing as an ecological economy by design rather than focusing on strategy as an exercise of organization and business planning?

3. Will Sanofi Aventis rapid position and action steps their leadership has taken to acquire Genzyme for $18.5 Billion embed sustainability into its agenda?

Will the focus for the merger be based on how much Genzyme's CEO, Henri Temeer can personally gain ($23M projected personal gain). Or will Sanofi Aventis bridge its sustainable agenda with Genzyme influenced by Sanofi Aventis' membership in the UNGlobal Compact?

Deloitte is inside Genzyme now as we speak conducting an analysis or audit. Given their role in developing the UN Global Compact Framework for Sustainability will they use this as away to value the company and contribute to the design of the merger/acquisition?

If Sanofi Aventis acquires Genzyme, will it introduce an initiative that leads current Genzyme employess into a culture of change that engages Genzyme's social network to experience sustainable improvements through the supply chain

What is at risk here?

Will competent employees be put at risk by downsizing and layoff for what or will Sanofi Aventis value the richness of human capital and address the barriers within the culture that have prevented competent people from performing for the benefit of all Genzyme stakeholders?

How will Genzyme improve on the delivery of current and new treatments to patient populations suffering with illnesses related to diseases, e.g. renal failure, leukemia gaucher disease?

The implications of questions like these are critical to embedding education into a culture of change initiative. This type of perspective requires looking and engaging outside the traditional boundaries of organization.

What are the core group economic decision making patterns within all these companies and what makes their CSR performance distinct and valuable or not?

A Personal Thank You to Elaine

Elaine, thank you so much for inspiring my week with your fast pace and intelligent analysis; While keeping me on my toes to shape my message in a productive and cohesive form, please forgive me if I occassionally seek out quiet from your very on demand world of media, please forgive me for not reading every valuable word of what you write. It seems after a year of posting on AboutWorkEcology,

it has become time to focus on my book, the indepth analysis I am doing to

to market and conduct workshop program (for individuals, communities of practice and organizations) to inspire new formations fo social networking that embed sustainability into Stakeholder Engagement to construct education formats of learning that impact and measure economic metrics for sustainability;

defining a new forum that is responsive for #safechem practices;

getting focused on taking my book proposal for Tale of Meaningful Use; Giving Economic Backbone to Sustainability the attention it requires to complete the book sooner rather than later.

And for now, simply adding a note of Congratulations to @Jeffrey Hogue on his marriage. Jeff, I saw you could not keep away from twitter, before your 9/6 projected return to work. Jeff, I hope I can connect with you constructively sometime post 9/12 so we can review my questions on the impact of Danisco's sustainability agenda from an economic point of view beyond organization practice.

June 17, 2010

My heart immediately sank deep into an experience of sorrow. When I get that way, I let my fingers walk through Google to clarify what I am feeling with facts. I found a few websites of facts on the implications of this health hazard.

3. Then I read this information on the Impact of Benzene on Leukemia and Lymphoma provided by a law firm, BarronBudd.com. This research summarized in this site on how Benzene as a hazard and exposure can lead to Leukemia and Lymphoma.

After reading this, my mother's voice went off in my head; the message she use to give me when she was angry and had to "tell me I told you so."

I found this cartoon from Huffington Post that contained a picture that replaces the thousands of words communicated in media every day that could force me to forget and bury my head in the sand re: this hazard that is going to impact the health of people living by the #BP #Oil Spill.

I chose empathy today and I chose to be awake and not deny this problem. Is there anyone out there that cares to join me.

It has gotten very simple for me. At present, there is a lot of attention on legislation for chemicals to make sure we assure safety for people and exercise precaution related to the 80,000 chemicals now used in products on the market. The legislation often implies we have to make priority the chemicals based on their volume of use.

Science now tells us that the amount of chemicals (volume used) does not dictate the impact of a chemical even in a small amount. Therefore substitution of chemicals of immediate concern has to have a new approach of examining the chemical, the amount of chemical and hazard potential.

ChemSec.org is an educational center in Europe that exists as a non profit for the purpose of creating a "toxic free world."

At their website, ChemSec describes the focus of their work as

"CHEMSEC - for a toxic free world

" Our focus is to highlight the risks of hazardous substances and influence and speed up legislative processes. We act as a catalyst for open dialogue between authorities, business and NGOs and collaborate with companies committed to taking the lead. All of our work is geared to stimulating public debate and action on the necessary steps towards a toxic free world. "

This week, I have had to deepen my empathy for the millions of people who have lives challenged by chemical exposure.

There are currently two reports in my collection that can open anyone's eyes to the opportunity represented by the BP Oil Spill Catastrophe.

June 13, 2010

Today, I sought some quiet to begin to imagine the world without BP. In my life-time and through my work, I have had opportunity to think in this way. The last time was when I began to imagine life without Digital Equipment Corporation.

Since the BP Oil Spill occurred, I have been reading and listening to news reports portraying the views of reporters, leaders and analysts that I respect. One such leader and analyst is Simon Thomas, founder of Trucost.com. Simon has turned his personal mission to build sustainable investment analytics and metrics by building a highly skilled and innovative network of people he has by founding Trucost.com. Simon's blog post this week provided context and relevance to what I have been synthesizing in my own mind since the beginning of the BP Oil spill.

"Since I founded over a decade ago I have often feared that it would take an environmental disaster for capital markets and society in general to start taking the environmental impacts of companies seriously.

In the same way that the Enron and Parmalat crises catapulted corporate governance into the mainstream investment agenda, so the BP oil spill is likely to change investment behaviour forever.

The Deepwater Horizon crisis is of course the result of a terrible accident and terrible accidents are impossible to predict reliably. Research providers struggle as much as anyone else in predicting such events; they are not clairvoyants.

Clearly the extent of the environmental impacts that are associated with the oil industry are well known, despite the concerted attempts of oil company public relations executives to paint an entirely more benign."

that the event was generating in his opinion" a lot of words to describe an event that is, at heart, about ... living within our means, understanding that we are interdependent and getting the accounting right."

I began to take note of a swarm that has grown around me over past few weeks in various leaving me an ache inside my gut that is loudly shouting that "we can no longer afford more of the same." This voice has echoed loudly numerous times through my life.

To get to the point of thinking about life after BP, I remembered a number of devastating catastrophe's that I have experienced or witnessed. I was born and currently live in Boston. People from Boston are very stoic. The experience of catastrophe or devastation to the New England economy is not new to most born here. There are very reminders of my numerous experiences with catastrophes with polio epidemics, hurricanes, recessions, fuel shortages and wide spread shut down due to a domino effect of lost industry. New England has a rich history in its experience of economic harm suffered from lost manufacturing, challenges to the fishing industry, lost defense contracts and the Harvard Community's HMO put into state receivership.

I remember in 1986, the explosion of the Space Shuttle, Challenger explosion took the lives of 7 astronauts

Americans had to own that their perfect space program could make mistakes and the magnitude of a mistake could take the lives of people.

Shortly after that experience, I found myself working and living in a community of people employed directly by Digital Equipment Corporation or within DEC's supply chain. Ken Olsen as CEO could not see that the personal computing revolution was going to overtake his obstinate view that DEC mini computers would dominate the market. This resulted in a loss of business that reduced a global workforce from 160,000 workers globally to approximately 35,000 workers who were absorbed into a Compaq acquisition followed by the 1990's HP acquisition of Compaq.

I lived in the Bay Area during the next two recessions and watched more Fortune 2000 companies disappear, e.g. Amdhal. By the end of 1993, I had seen the impact of pervasive downsizing of 800,000 workers in California destroy communities, make families homeless and strip children of any hope for a future.

Around 1994, while living in Cupertino, CA, (home of Apple.com) during one of my numerous episodes of layoff, I participated as a volunteer in a meeting of a community group with the Superintendent of the Cupertino School System). As a member of this group, I was privy to the results of a school based study to diagnose why children in the Cupertino School System were malnourished.

The findings of this study challenged a very "thick denial" in the room by the wealthy people in the room, who were not personally derailed by the recession. These people were shocked to learn their neighbors who were laid off could not feed their children. Most of these children were going through a school day with no food, because their parents had lost their jobs. Parallel to this study in San Jose, CA diagnosed the source of a growing homeless problem in San Jose. The problem was accelerating as a result of economic challenged families; the homeless population no longer could simply be seen described as the drug addicted, alcoholic or depressed PTSD diagnosed Veterans.

This past week, John Sculley, former CEO of Apple 35 years ago, spoke with Daily Beast's Thomas Weber about his regrets and rift with now Apple CEO, Steve Jobs in 1986. Do you think it has occurred to Sculley to examine the harm that he followed by Michael Spindler, CEO of Apple in the early 90's? These layoffs and a phase of decline grew out of the rift with Jobs that Sculley sparked and spiraled into a recession that left children malnourished and causing families to lose their homes.

Through May and into early June, as the BP Oil Spill continued and I did my best to absorb the implications of the message from the Global Reporting Conference 2010 and the overwhelming value of reports from the Ceres 2010 Conference, the week prior to GRI, I found myself at a meeting in Washington DC with a safe chemical community partnership that has been formed to help lobby and advocate for to revise update US Chemical legislation and policy.

Hard working people from around the country attended this meeting. They represented Ngo's, corporations and government agencies, Everyone participated with a sincerity and intent to have impact. The meeting was well designed, informative and presented an opportunity for quality networking.

Along with my experience of research re: REACH and Non-ionizing radiation, I left the meeting knowing intuitively all the quality legislation in the world in any country will not prevent the equivalent of a chemical BP Oil Spill. All the legislation passed cannot protect people from disasters as they occur if business perpetuates a culture of harm, government invests and writes laws of fear that create expensive bureaucracies and non profits continue a focus of raising philanthropic investment for media campaigns and protests that create confusion and do not empower learning to lead change and repair harm.

This week, the volume of my intuitive message increased in decibels. This voice was shouting in my head as loudly as it did during other occassions when

I resigned from Harvard's HMO in the early 80's;

I experienced the DEC frenzy resulting in my layoff late 80's,

The eruption of E-commerce turning into a recession in the late 90's;

I returned from California to Boston in 1999, to witnessed the full cycle of harm from years of financial mismanagement that put Harvard Pilgrim Health Care in receivership.

What is MIssing?

That question has been burning in side of me since I returned to Boston from WDC last week from the meeting related to TSCA and Safe Chemicals.

Nothing is going to escape what I know is the only way to construct an economy of change through lots of people to bring about a new form of complex work that breathes life into the global and local economies to become a living ecosystem of sustainability. Within companies, government entities and non profits that oversee the payrolls of workers , who want to carry out their jobs with the intent to live stable lives there is now absolutely no escape from doing the hard work that it means to assure and build a sustainable economy.

You see it would have taken hard work to synchronize the medical record system at Harvard Pilgrim with the financial system; and more hard work to get the information organized and feeding in synch with the hospitals that billed Harvard Pilgrim insurance. This was know years ago even before my resignation in the early 1980's when I made the decision to leave while I could still be viewed a success. For some reason my voice among many other hard workers was not heard.

Many at Digital Equipment Corporation knew that Ken Olsen's view of mini computing was not responsive to the new frontier of personal computing. The people could not counter act Ken Olsen's stubbornness and the harm that followed.

I recall at one point in grad school seeing a film simulating the engineering conversation about the Challenger where one male engineer's voice expressing concern about something faulty was overlooked and what he said diminished. I recalled a conference call I attended with a major petroleum company (not BP), earlier in this decade with a team was working with an $800K investment in software for an oil and drill knowledge management system. Again those of us who were hard working, questioned how a corporation could invest $800k in a system that was not put into wide use, could not get heard.

Many say they are confused by the term sustainability and don't know what it means. Let me offer you a simple definition I provided to Aman Singh, Vault.com's CSR correspondent, in a review of Kathrin Winkler's role at EMC as Chief Sustainability Officer,

" sustainability is based on a simple premise: 'corporate sustainability is really about business survival: Take the long view, or your business won't survive in a failing global society or environment. Long-term sustainability affects customers, employees, suppliers, neighbors, partners, governmental bodies, and civil society. If we make our business choices based on how we interact with those stakeholders, then we are promoting sustainability."

Let me in this moment return the chemical agenda I have been researching that has grown out of Europe's REACH legislation and the movement of other countries to adopt this regulation or build new legislative platforms e.g. the US revision of TSCA.

Again somewhere in the crowd is a chemist who understands that one of the 80,000+ chemicals in use in a small amount may be showing signs of doing wide spread harm and at present this chemist cannot prove it. This hard working individual has an idea that needs research and support and encouragement but from a financial view and from the perspective of shareholder investment pushing on the perception of this voice who understands it is necessary that a large volume of this chemical is in use.

REACH regulation contains a 1 ton qualifier. It does not apply to a potential chemical in use where the proportion is much smaller than the potential harm. There are now 350+ chemicals that have been identified that are worthy of research and further investigation that are not based on this 1 Ton in use qualifier. The 1 Ton qualifier diminishes the voice of a hard working chemist or health professional, who loves his/her job or has a feeling in his/her gut that a chemical they recognize should be of concern. This is one point of vulnerability of many that investors and economic decision makers or company leaders never gain insight into potential harm.

In following the rapid change over the past few years at General Electric and Walmart, I have been slowly grasping what it means when a major global corporation views itself as an economy rather than a company and a player that influences the natural ebb and ecological flow of an economy. Neither GE or Walmart have perfected their science and they are demonstrating methods of continuous learning that convene the small voices of natural leadership to do the hard work that assures a viable scientific agenda and resources to assure no harm.

This week, Elaine Cohen, found a hidden jewel in Warren Buffet's complex of business. She found one company Shaw Floors wrote a CSR report., I wondered if this could be a door of possibility through which Berkshire Industries might follow Walmart and General Electric and begin to lead itself as a sustainable economy? I am holding similar thoughts for HP to do the same. Last week, I learned that HP's material purchases from its supply chain over 179 countries totals $79B. I bet HP could benefit from sitting at the table with GE and Walmart it may find a formula to invest in the research of numerous chemist within its supply chain to exercise precaution based on the Earth Charter Principle to do no harm.

This week after a sinus infection, I discovered a love for mixing Trader Joes' rasberry and lemon sorbet to lighten that sour feeling in my mouth from learning to be patient as people in reaction from all sectors learn to stop the BP oil gush and sort out a system by which to repair harm and prevent further harm. Hopefully the press and community voices and groups will move into a format of reporting on the emerging resources and activities that are surfacing to repair the trauma, harm and fee of unproductive chaos of reaction.

Registration is now open for the second in the workshop series
sponsored by Cal/EPA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment,
and the Centers for Occupational and Environmental Health (COEH) at UC
Berkeley and UCLA:

Senate Bill 509 requires Cal/EPA's Office of
Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment to evaluate and specify the hazard traits,
toxicological and environmental endpoints and other relevant data to be
included in California's Toxics Information Clearinghouse. The
Clearinghouse will be constructed by the Department of Toxic Substances
Control and will include traits related to human health, ecological
toxicity and potential for exposure. This workshop explores indicators
of ecotoxicity and exposure potential for inclusion in the Toxics
Information Clearinghouse.

To obtain a copy of the agenda or to simply register, please send
your name, email address and affiliation to: elina.nasser@ucla.edu